Tourney Another ruling question (1 Viewer)

[upNdown]

At an NH card room tournament last weekend, the following ruling happened and it just felt wrong:

SB, BB post, cards are dealt, it folds around to the small blind, who calls. As SB calls,, the BB looks at her cards for the first time and notices she has 3 cards. Dealer calls floor, floor rules BB hand is dead, SB wins.
I guess the ruling is that it can't be a misdeal, since action has taken place, but isn't there some other ruling that could be made? It just seems unfair that BB loses her BB for the dealer's mistake, when its perfectly normal for her to have not looked at her cards until that point.

 

[Josh Kifer]

.... That is a extremely dumb ruling... It might be right (I just call the rules at my house, were not that serious), but it seems far from fair...

 

[moose]

As soon as two people have acted, including folding, the BB's hand is dead.

 

[BGinGA]

Don't remember the exact text, but any hand that contains more than the correct number of cards is automatically dead, unless it's found before any action occurs (ie, the player could have announced her hand had three cards upon receipt prior to UTG's action, and the entire hand would be considered a misdeal). Same situation if one of the two cards is a joker, too.

Good reason to check your hand immediately upon receipt, regardless of other strategy considerations. I've been dealt a joker before.

 

[Numerobis]

Interesting ruling. I would have thought like OP to be an unfair ruling for the BB, but after reading @BGinGA it makes sense

 

[aleexxxxx]

Interesting ruling, agree that it seems unfair BB losing his or her blind due to dealer error. At a home game there is zero chance that ruling would take place. It makes sense but it's a bit extreme IMO. If BB announced he/she has 3 cards before a flop is dealt I would rule a misdeal at my home game. On the other hand if BB didn't say anything and a flop is dealt I'd go that route and award SB the pot.

 

[moose]

As soon as two people have acted, including folding, the BB's hand is dead.

[Cough]

RROP

MISDEALS

1. The following circumstances cause a misdeal, provided attention is called to the error before two players have acted on their hands. (If two players have acted in turn, the deal must be played to conclusion, as explained in rule #2)

(a) The first or second card of the hand has been dealt faceup or exposed through dealer error.

(b) Two or more cards have been exposed by the dealer.

(c) Two or more boxed cards (improperly faced cards) are found.

(d) Two or more extra cards have been dealt in the starting hands of a game.

(e) An incorrect number of cards has been dealt to a player, except the top card may be dealt if it goes to the player in proper sequence.

 

[Wils]

And the moral of the story is, you don't have to read your cards soon as you get 'em, but you should always count 'em.

 

[CHP TD]

whats rule 2

 

[DJ Mack]

whats rule 2

The reason BB's hand was declared dead and no misdeal permitted:

...In button games, action is considered to occur when two players after the blinds have acted on their hands. Once action occurs, a misdeal can no longer be declared. The hand is played to conclusion and no money is returned to any player whose hand is fouled.

 

[Poker Zombie]

whats rule 2

Misdeals

2. Once action occurs, a misdeal can no longer be declared. The hand will be played to conclusion, and no money will be returned to any player whose hand is fouled. In button games, action is considered to occur when two players after the blinds have acted on their hands. In stud games, action is considered to occur when two players after the forced bet have acted on their hands.

EDIT: Looks like DJ beat me to it.

 

[upNdown]

No doubt the ruling is correct based on that rule. But isn’t this a time where the TD could have made a different ruling in the interest of fairness?
Who would suffer if the TD called it a misdeal? Obviously not the two+ players who acted, because they folded. The only person who could suffer is the SB who limped, indicating a desire to play that hand. Can the TD weigh the greater injustice? Who suffers more - the SB who loses the opportunity to play the hand she limped, or the BB, who is losing chips?
The TD has to be allowed the discretion to make a ruling that makes more sense than the black and white rule.

 

[WedgeRock]

Lesson: if you don't want to look at your cards before action is on you, you need to at least pay attention to the deal.

 

[DJ Mack]

No doubt the ruling is correct based on that rule. But isn’t this a time where the TD could have made a different ruling in the interest of fairness?

I don't think so because of the moral hazard it will create. This rule is black and white. While the rules do allow the TD to make decisions in the spirit of fairness even if a "strict interpretation of the rules may indicate a different ruling", to me that has always meant more esoteric things where there is some disagreement over whether or not the rule applies. One guy reads the rule in his favor and another disputes that the situation at hand is precisely what the rules cover. In this particular situation there was no good faith dispute over the rule or its applicability so waiving it in the so-called spirit of fairness is inappropriate and starts down a very slippery slope.

What happens an hour later when the deal attracts a caller and the player who was the SB is now the BB and he realizes he has three cards? He's going to be livid if he isn't awarded a misdeal too. After all there's only been one caller so it's not that unreasonable to push his bet back and award a do over. If there's serious players in the group expect things to get ugly.

The other way I look at it is what Wedge and others have said - suck it up buttercup, a one BB penalty isn't that big of a deal. Pay attention next time.

 

[Poker Zombie]

No doubt the ruling is correct based on that rule. But isn’t this a time where the TD could have made a different ruling in the interest of fairness?
Who would suffer if the TD called it a misdeal? Obviously not the two+ players who acted, because they folded. The only person who could suffer is the SB who limped, indicating a desire to play that hand. Can the TD weigh the greater injustice? Who suffers more - the SB who loses the opportunity to play the hand she limped, or the BB, who is losing chips?
The TD has to be allowed the discretion to make a ruling that makes more sense than the black and white rule.

BB has additional information that previous players did not have prior to taking action. That cannot be allowed. Poker is a game of observation. If you cannot tell how many cards you have, it is your error.

Well, it's the dealer's error. No tip for them. I'd be a dick and the next time I pulled a pot, I'd probably say "I'd tip you $2, but you took that from me already, so now we're even".

It would also prevent me from feeling jilted.

 

[upNdown]

In the end, it wasn’t a big deal - the Big blind wasn’t THAT significant at that point in the tournament and it went from the big stack to the second biggest stack. And both players went on to the final table, and they were both still alive when I got knocked out.
The most annoying part of the episode was the BB’s husband. She told him what happened, he asked the TD for a copy of the rules, and he sat down two feet from the table and read the rules. Eventually they told him to go read the rules elsewhere, but give me a break, you wanker. Let your wife play her own tournament.

 

[DJ Mack]

The most annoying part of the episode was the BB’s husband. She told him what happened, he asked the TD for a copy of the rules, and he sat down two feet from the table and read the rules. Eventually they told him to go read the rules elsewhere, but give me a break, you wanker. Let your wife play her own tournament.

Reason number 693 to have the rules posted, and preferably away from the tables if it's a commercial establishment.

 

[Poker Zombie]

A rule this esoteric, would never be posted, unless they posted the entire RROP and TDA rules, which would be enough to completely wallpaper smaller poker rooms.

 

[DJ Mack]

A rule this esoteric, would never be posted, unless they posted the entire RROP and TDA rules, which would be enough to completely wallpaper smaller poker rooms.

I've played in some local church tournaments where they have one of those big loop clipboards holding about 30 pages of rules and legalese by the check in desk. Of course nobody reads them but when disputes arise the TD thumbs towards the front door and says they're over there, you had the opportunity to read them earlier, feel free to do so now and we'll post the blinds from your stack as necessary.

 

[BGinGA]

Curious to how the TDs here would rule if all players folded to the big blind.... and it was then discovered that he/she had three cards (and a dead hand). Dealer can't award the pot to a dead hand, but all others hands have already been folded and mucked.

Rule a misdeal and re-deal the hand? Rule the entire hand dead, return the blinds, move the button and deal the next one?

 

[bentax1978]

Curious to how the TDs here would rule if all players folded to the big blind.... and it was then discovered that he/she had three cards (and a dead hand). Dealer can't award the pot to a dead hand, but all others hands have already been folded and mucked.

Rule a misdeal and re-deal the hand? Rule the entire hand dead, return the blinds, move the button and deal the next one?

Of course if everyone folds to the BB, the BB doesn't need to show a winning hand and could just toss his/her cards into the muck and (likely) no one would notice that it was a three card hand. Not debating the ethics of doing so, just that it could play out that way too.

 

[Poker Zombie]

Curious to how the TDs here would rule if all players folded to the big blind.... and it was then discovered that he/she had three cards (and a dead hand). Dealer can't award the pot to a dead hand, but all others hands have already been folded and mucked.

Rule a misdeal and re-deal the hand? Rule the entire hand dead, return the blinds, move the button and deal the next one?

I'm inclined to think that the BB would be awarded the pot because they were the last player in the pot. Their had would not be killed until it was discovered, which in this case was after everyone had folded.

 

[BGinGA]

The rules basically consider these situations to be identical:

• Player's hand contains three cards
• Player's hand contains a joker
• Player's hand contains two identical cards

I don't think anybody here is going to award the pot to an illegal hand in the latter two cases, and shouldn't in the first case, either.

An illegal hand is always declared dead, unless discovered prior to two actions. So once it's discovered and declared dead, what to do with the pot?

 

[WedgeRock]

If the pot is awarded before three cards to the BB is noticed, the hand is over and BB keeps the pot. (This assumes that BB did not check is cards, know he had three cards and kept quiet as a sort of free roll. In that case, a rail penalty for the BB is probably in order.)

If it is folded to the BB and then its discovered (before the pot is awarded) that the BB has three cards and the hand is therefore dead, I'd re-deal the hand.

 

[upNdown]

The rules basically consider these situations to be identical:

• Player's hand contains three cards
• Player's hand contains a joker
• Player's hand contains two identical cards

I don't think anybody here is going to award the pot to an illegal hand in the latter two cases, and shouldn't in the first case, either.

An illegal hand is always declared dead, unless discovered prior to two actions. So once it's discovered and declared dead, what to do with the pot?

Right. I agree. The BB can not win because the BB never had a hand.

 

[DJ Mack]

what to do with the pot?